Is Warren an anomaly or a harbinger for the Democrats?

posted at 2:21 pm on August 6, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Republicans began licking their chops when organizers for the Democratic convention in Charlotte announced that Elizabeth Warren would get a plum speaking slot in prime time — just before Bill Clinton’s formal nomination of Barack Obama as the party’s nominee. That bolsters the Republican strategy of tying Obama to Warren’s anti-business tirade in Massachusetts, roughly equivalent in argument if not in tone with Obama’s “you didn’t build that” gaffe last month. Politico’s headline for an analysis of this choice asks whether Warren will be a plus or minus for Democrats in that sense, but the better question comes further into the article, which is whether Warren and her class-warfare rhetoric represents the modern Democratic Party better than anyone who believes in free enterprise:

After Obama opted not to nominate her to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the face of strong Republican opposition, Warren became a hero to the progressive left, which already talks about her for national office in 2016. Long before she ever launched her Senate run, the liberal base was drafting her.

More important, she represents a growing force within the party — a progressive agenda coupled with disdain for the type of transactional politicking that former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and his colleagues in the Clinton administration were known for.

To some extent, that’s what progressives thought they were buying in 2008 with Obama. Their disappointment with Obama for not being more leftward in governing philosophy is partly what animates the momentum for Warren within the party. However, as one analyst points out, what sells in Massachusetts might be a lot more limiting nationwide:

Warren has “that one elusive quality that we all want in our leaders, but can’t ever seem to get — freshness. Few people can combine newness with competence — Palin demonstrates the obvious pitfall — but she’s one of them. That was obviously a big part of Obama’s allure in 2008,” said former Democratic Governors Association executive director Nathan Daschle.

“At the same time, her anti-Wall Street message is powerful but limiting. As Obama learned, what works in Massachusetts isn’t necessarily what will work nationally,” he added.

“Most Americans are optimists, not pessimists. They don’t see themselves as victims. They see themselves as upwardly mobile, and that’s the product of their own sweat and labor. They work so hard to provide for their families that they naturally resent anyone they perceive as taking credit away. What they hear is ‘You didn’t work hard enough to deserve what you have.’”

The real question about Warren’s momentum is whether the Democratic Party will shift even further to the extreme Left, both in policy and in tone — especially with Warren, whose recent campaign ad wondered why the US didn’t spend more like China on its infrastructure. That kind of argument works well with the Tom Friedmans and Paul Krugmans of the world, who have openly admired China’s authoritarian efficiency without noting that (a) China has a very long way to go to catch up to American infrastructure, (b) China uses slave labor on a lot of those projects, and (c) Beijing has been burned on a number of occasions on overbuilding without demand. The argument that China’s policies are somehow better than the US might make for interesting cocktail conversation at faculty meet-and-greets, but it’s going to flop badly if used on the campaign stump.

‘I bought the New Republic to take back the Democratic Party from the McGovernites,” the legendary editor and publisher Martin Peretz says. Now, he fears, George McGovern’s ideas may be back in vogue within the party. …

“You know, I disagreed with Bill Clinton on some things and I didn’t disagree with him on others,” Mr. Peretz recalls. But Mr. Clinton’s administration “was in the deep tradition of the Roosevelt-Truman idea.” He concludes: “In any case, I think the Democratic Party was restored to a center role. Yes, it took a lot for the Clinton administration to rescue Bosnia. And it took a lot for the Democrats to admit to a mistake in Somalia.” But they eventually did both.

“We’re now in a new era,” Mr. Peretz warns. “I think that Obama is a child, or maybe let’s say a grandchild, of the New Left, with casual moral judgments made about very intricate ethical alternatives.” Later he thunders: “Leading by following—it’s really a sick phrase.”

One case in point for Peretz’ narrative of shifting to the extreme was the criticism leveled at Romney last week for what Peretz believes is an objective truth:

To Mr. Peretz, the notion that Arab cultures are beset with endemic pathologies is noncontroversial, almost a banal point. “[Mitt] Romney was said to have made a tremendous faux pas when he said that the difference between the Palestinians and the Israelis is a matter of culture,” alluding to historian David Landes’s book, “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations.”

“Mostly David discusses their social cooping up of women as a factor in Arab poverty, backwardness, et cetera,” Mr. Peretz explains. “Now, this would be, if you were talking generally, a very acceptable and progressive critique.” Indeed, “one of the reasons that you have economic backwardness is that women do not work and women do not get education.”

That Mr. Romney should have to go on the defensive over his remarks, Mr. Peretz thinks, has to do with the fact that “the magazines and the websites that are popular among the liberal, semi-intelligent, semi-intellectual readership of America have their own ideological blinders.”

Indeed. So while Warren gives the Republicans a very easy way to link Obama to her class-warfare rants, her prime-time speaking slot may be the most honest way that the Democratic Party can represent itself to voters. That’s also good news for Republicans.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

after the slaughter thats coming in Nov, there will be an all-out civil war between the erstwhile DLC dems and the full-on socialist dems. my money is on the DLCers. you know where willie is going to come down on that. slick backstabbing obama with his “legacy”; delicious.

So while Warren gives the Republicans a very easy way to link Obama to her class-warfare rants, her prime-time speaking slot may be the most honest way that the Democratic Party can represent itself to voters. That’s also good news for Republicans.

We republicans need some good news since we’ve got a liberal socialist as our standard bearer today.

The argument that China’s policies are somehow better than the US might make for interesting cocktail conversation at faculty meet-and-greets, but it’s going to flop badly if used on the campaign stump.

Not to mention get togethers by Native Americans attending Harvard. You know people like Warren.

after the slaughter thats coming in Nov, there will be an all-out civil war between the erstwhile DLC dems and the full-on socialist dems. my money is on the DLCers. you know where willie is going to come down on that. slick backstabbing obama with his “legacy”; delicious.

t8stlikchkn on August 6, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Yes, once we drive the socialists down into the holes – pour gasoline down the hole
and light with a flamethrower……”Let em burn”!!!!!

I’m totally not seeing how Warren is a rising star in the Democrat party. She turned 63 in June–that’s old by any standard. And it’s not like she has a vast network of cronies that she built up over the decades as does Pelozilla.

RBMN on August 6, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Ronaldus Magnus was making the point that the initially benign statement would lead to the later manifestation.

The leadership of the party and many of its “rock star” candidates are pretty far left and the policies they’ve pushed for have killed the careers of the nominal “Blue Dogs” who were supposed to be a counterbalance to them.

No one believes anything a Blue Dog says anymore because the party demands orthodoxy and dissidents will be cut off come election time.

Unless there is a total changeover of party leadership after Obama et all get destroyed in November, they’re going to go even FURTHER left thinking that the problem was the messaging and not the message.

Obama – most liberal U.S. President in American history.
Pelosi – liberal from San Fran.
DWS – Liberal.
Reid – Used to be a moderate, now just a liberal.

That is who the Democrats are now. They pretend the republicans have moved to the far right. However, the 1960 Republican candidate can still be a Republican today. I dont know if you can say the same about JFK today.

The actual McGoverniks are approaching retirement. Most of the rest of the far left think of Carter as a good President because they remember seeing Star Wars with Mommy and Daddy, and playing with cool Star Wars toys. Then their leftie Professor told them how really good Carter was.

They are either too young to really remember what happened to the Far Left, or they are oldsters afraid they will die before they changed the world, and actually believe what happened to Carter won’t happen again.

The Democrats are desperate to take back Kennedy’s former Senate seat from Scott, and are thus will to risk elevating Warren at the convention to increase her standing back home.

Also, the elevation of Warren has some parallels to the choice of Palin as McCain’s VP four years ago. McCain picked Palin because his base hated him, and he needed to give them a reason to get excited about voting for him. Obama’s base is very unhappy right now, and a number of them may stay home on election day, especially the youth vote. Warren, the Rosa Luxemburg of Cambridge, MA, is just what the doctor ordered.

It’s a risky strategy. It didn’t work for McCain and it won’t likely work for Obama. Warren, like Palin in 2008, can be demonized, although her position is not as prominent as the VP slot, and Obama can distance himself from her if he has to. But for an incumbent to be desperate to please his base means that he is in a very weak position. For all of Romney’s problems with conservatives, he’s in a better position with his base than Obama. Even the black pastors are pissed off about the gay marriage thing, and are not willing to be taken for granted.

I hope Warren speaks during prime time.

And this is not an attack on Palin, a far more potent individual than Warren, so please don’t take it as such. I’m just talking politics.

Warren is a freaking communist. And a pathological liar to an extent I have never seen in my life, even more so then Bill Clinton. If the left sees her as a standard bearer, it proves once and for all that liberalism is a severe mental disorder.

The neo-communist “Progressives” have completely taken over the party. I don’t see how any old school Democrat of the JFK era can remain with the party any longer. I don’t see how they can remain affiliated with this party and look themselves in the mirror.

Remember back in the late 80′s, early nineties, “liberals” started calling themselves “progressive” because after the Reagan era, the term “liberal” had a bad connotation. Well that was only partially true. There is a difference between a “bleeding heart” liberal, and a progressive. The McGovernites Peretz refers to are progressives. Even though he admires FDR, Franklin was a progressive as well. Truman was more conservative than Nixon, both Bush’s and probably Romney too. Nevertheless, it is amusing to hear Democrats whine about “uber-ultra-rightwing-arch-conservatives” taking over the Republican Party, while their progressives have a bigger hold on the Democrat Party.
The good news though, is the Tea Party need not start a 3rd party, but rather let the big government Republicans form it with the old line milquetoast Democrats!

It’s a risky strategy. It didn’t work for McCain and it won’t likely work for Obama. Warren, like Palin in 2008, can be demonized, although her position is not as prominent as the VP slot, and Obama can distance himself from her if he has to. But for an incumbent to be desperate to please his base means that he is in a very weak position. For all of Romney’s problems with conservatives, he’s in a better position with his base than Obama. Even the black pastors are pissed off about the gay marriage thing, and are not willing to be taken for granted.

McCain’s problem wasn’t Palin, it was that he couldn’t run a campaign worth a crap due to media bias and incompetence from his own people, including himself.

Obama’s problems will be more along the lines of “He doesn’t have anything he can run on and everything he’s doing seems to be pissing off more and more people.”

And another troubling thing about Warren is just how much of a phoney fraud she really is. She used a fake minority status to get ahead, plagiarized cook books, made tons of money on flipping real estate while decrying it. Everything about Warren is a fraud.

I mean this woman is so deranged that she even lies about nonsensical and easily verified false stuff like: that she was the first breast feeding mother to take her bar exam, her parents interloped, and so many more.

I really think this woman is mentally ill, which would be a further testament to the derangement of liberalism.

WRONG! Every post of mine should be an attack on liberalism. It is not my fault that Willard is liberal through and through.

BTW, thank you for feeling I am important enough for you to waste a large part of your free time [24/7?] persuing. While you are right about the importance of my grass roots efforts you fail to prove me wrong time after time.

Maybe you can tell us how Romney’s Individual Mandate is Conservative? How does it make us free? Why do you support Romneycare part Deux [aka. 0bamacare]?

Come on! PROVE the courage of your convictions, child! I do so every day.

He isn’t a liberal but I am willing to bet YOU are. ANY Republican governor with an 85% Democrat legislative branch would apparently be a “liberal”. You don’t know a thing about Romney, I’m willing to bet.

If you aren’t for Romney, then you are an Obama supporter. It really is *that* simple.

The real question about Warren’s momentum is whether the Democratic Party will shift even further to the extreme Left, both in policy and in tone…

It’s going to depend upon if Obama wins or loses, and if he loses, by how much? The old rule used to be a political party that was seen as extreme had to lose three consecutive election before it realized it needed to come back to the political center.

Whether we believe the DLC and the Democrats were legitimately centrist or not, the three losses in ’80, ’84, and ’88 are said to convinced the Democrats to go with a “moderate”, Southern governor in ’92. He did serve two terms, although he benefited from the lame candidacies of Ross Perot and Bob Dole.

More important, she represents a growing force within the party — a progressive agenda coupled with disdain for the type of transactional politicking that former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and his colleagues in the Clinton administration were known for.

This is just laughable. Who believes such drivel – other than the idiots at Politico? The hard Left was never more than about a third of the Democratic electorate and it still isn’t. And who, pray tell, is doing “transactional politicking” more than Barack Obama himself?

Lizzy Warren is speaking at the DNC convention because…well, who else have they got?

She isn’t ready for prime time, and her speech will be a flat out disaster for the Democrats.

Warren does realize that the Chinese people have to keep a pot next to their water faucet in order to boil their water prior to drinking it right?

The infrastructure (e.g. lack of proper public drinking water treamtent facilities) in China is so far behind that they must boil water prior to drinking it in order to not get sick. China is no model for the US.

Come on! PROVE the courage of your convictions, child! I do so every day.

DannoJyd on August 6, 2012 at 2:55 PM

When you were on a football softball team, you started a fight with the captain fifteen minutes prior to game start because of all the bad decisions he she took in the previous game. Right? That seems to be your style.

Lizzy Warren is speaking at the DNC convention because…well, who else have they got?

She isn’t ready for prime time, and her speech will be a flat out disaster for the Democrats.

rockmom on August 6, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Gotta remember, this is a marathon. I think the Dems are plotting “big picture” outcomes. They are doing their hardest to keep control of the Senate.

She need only gain name recognition and credibility with the voters in MA. I think this is more to boost her chances of beating Brown than it is to help Obama.

In the end, I actually think this is a smart move by the Dems. Do all they can to boost her persona so fools in MA think she is a popular candidate and vote for her. The inverse would be that the GOP would never invite Scott Brown to speak in a major roll at the convention. Point goes to Warren over Brown.

The GOP is terrible at tieing the monolothic democratic party to Obama and vice versa. Just look at how easily Obama can send Reid out with a flat out lie and not suffer any consequences.

Warren can look popular and speak. She can even say crazy things and it won’t be tied to Obama. We have a GOP who fails frequently to tie Dems together. The Democratic Party is so well organized that they always have the exact same scripted talking points, yet the GOP cannot tie the Reid attacks to Obama. This is the weakness of the GOP.

Unless the GOP can start calling out liberals and tieing them to Obama, this will be a win-win for the Dems.

“Freshness?” Fauxcahontas Warren wouldn’t be “fresh” even if you dumped an entire truckload of Summer’s Eve on her. While she’s chasing her Bonita to stave off brittle bones, with some hippy dippy all-natural prune juice from the local Whole Foods, wearing her tie dyed dress, listening to Joan Baez, kind of fresh? With her hip, new radical views straight outta the 60s? Sure, ok.

She LIED about being a Native American so she could get a job at Harvard. She knows she lied. I know she lied. You know she lied. Every single democrat voter knows she lied. Barack Obama knows she lied. Every reporter covering her campaign knows she lied. There is no one anywhere who believes anything other than that she is a wealthy white woman who LIED about being a Native American so she could ride affirmative action into a six-figure salary with poor credentials and no intelletual contribution to her field.

And this is what barack thinks is his secret weapon? Good luck with that. Her lame-brain left-wing rhetoric aside, the woman is a LIAR and a FRAUD of the most cynical sort. Rich white kids in the east joke about putting themselves as minorities on their college applications — this FREAK actually did it! And barack and the democrats will never understand until it’s too late that out here in America, people frown on that sort of thing.

Let the Native American protests at the democrat national convention begin!

“At the same time, her anti-Wall Street message is powerful but limiting. As Obama learned, what works in Massachusetts isn’t necessarily what will work nationally…”

I’ve got news for you: it’s not working very well in Massachusetts right now. I rarely see Warren yard sighs and bumper stickers. Vastly more Brown messaging is out there, including a devastating prime-time TV commercial endorsement from former Boston mayor Ray Flynn.

Fauxahontas may be peddling it, but I have a feeling Massachusetts isn’t buying this time.

Warren to be the surprise VEEP replacement? I’d bet money that Biden will be off the ticket and replaced with someone who can get voters to the polls. There are plenty of loons on the left that would fill this role. Just waiting for the news to hit.

I’ve got news for you: it’s not working very well in Massachusetts right now. I rarely see Warren yard sighs and bumper stickers. Vastly more Brown messaging is out there, including a devastating prime-time TV commercial endorsement from former Boston mayor Ray Flynn.

Fauxahontas may be peddling it, but I have a feeling Massachusetts isn’t buying this time.

stoutcat on August 6, 2012 at 3:35 PM

I honestly hope you’re right. It COULD mean that Progressivism as it is now is becoming a hard sell even in a heavily Democrat-dominated state. But it likely means Warren is just a horrible candidate, which is a euphemism that today’s Progressivism needs a prettier bow wrapped around it to sell it.

She LIED about being a Native American so she could get a job at Harvard. She knows she lied. I know she lied. You know she lied. Every single democrat voter knows she lied. Barack Obama knows she lied. Every reporter covering her campaign knows she lied. There is no one anywhere who believes anything other than that she is a wealthy white woman who LIED about being a Native American so she could ride affirmative action into a six-figure salary with poor credentials and no intelletual contribution to her field.

And this is what barack thinks is his secret weapon? Good luck with that. Her lame-brain left-wing rhetoric aside, the woman is a LIAR and a FRAUD of the most cynical sort. Rich white kids in the east joke about putting themselves as minorities on their college applications — this FREAK actually did it! And barack and the democrats will never understand until it’s too late that out here in America, people frown on that sort of thing.

Let the Native American protests at the democrat national convention begin!

Rational Thought on August 6, 2012 at 3:33 PM

None of this matters. The media is done with it and the ends justify the means for liberals. They do not ever expect to play by the same rules that they force on others.

I think there are 2 separate questions here. Is the Democratic leadership moving further to the left?

The 2nd question – will rank and file Democrats move left with them? Faculty room Dems are a tiny minority of the party, though they’re extremely powerful relative to their numbers. It’s the GOP’s job to point out to blacks, union workers, and other Dem. voting blocks the continued failure of liberal policies.

I think there are 2 separate questions here. Is the Democratic leadership moving further to the left?

The 2nd question – will rank and file Democrats move left with them? Faculty room Dems are a tiny minority of the party, though they’re extremely powerful relative to their numbers. It’s the GOP’s job to point out to blacks, union workers, and other Dem. voting blocks the continued failure of liberal policies.

hawksruleva on August 6, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Answer to both questions is a resounding yes. See election of B. Obama.

The 2nd question – will rank and file Democrats move left with them? Faculty room Dems are a tiny minority of the party, though they’re extremely powerful relative to their numbers. It’s the GOP’s job to point out to blacks, union workers, and other Dem. voting blocks the continued failure of liberal policies.

hawksruleva on August 6, 2012 at 3:52 PM

It won’t matter. The party leaders will do their darnedest to keep the various special-interest constituencies on the reservation. They’ve been going it for years by demonizing Republicans and conservatives, because they know if we make a big enough sale, the Democrats will cease to be a national party.

None of this matters. The media is done with it and the ends justify the means for liberals. They do not ever expect to play by the same rules that they force on others.

weaselyone on August 6, 2012 at 3:51 PM

I understand that. My point, though, is that EVERYONE knows she’s the old rich white woman who lied about being an Indian to get a job at Harvard. So the media has stopped talking about it. So what? It’s out there already. And it WILL continue to come up because THIS is barack’s desperate pick for a keynote speech at his convention. Scott Brown will be on every network out there responding to her speech, reminding voters what a total corrupt sleazeball she is, and that she’s barack’s new best friend. They are simply clueless and out of touch.

She LIED about being a Native American so she could get a job at Harvard. She knows she lied. I know she lied. You know she lied. Every single democrat voter knows she lied. Barack Obama knows she lied. Every reporter covering her campaign knows she lied. There is no one anywhere who believes anything other than that she is a wealthy white woman who LIED about being a Native American so she could ride affirmative action into a six-figure salary with poor credentials and no intelletual contribution to her field.
Rational Thought on August 6, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Wasn’t Hitler half-Jewish? Nobody cared then and nobody cares now.

It’s not what particular class you happen to claim to be siding with at any given moment; the only thing that matters to these people is the Class Warfare itself. And whoever shows the most commitment in fanning those flames is their hero. Period.

Gotta keep up the spirit of my nick. As said above, more “ascendant” than harbinger. A lot of my judgement comes from knowing that the lefties have had control of the schools for three complete school generations. School now rarely includes civics, and I think it was James Lileks or Rob Long who said (approximately) “American History is now ‘We killed all the Indians, slavery, Rosa Parks and we bombed Hiroshima.” That came from Rob saying that all his god-child had learned about WWII was we bombed Hiroshima. The Howard Zinnization of the nation.

And it’s also been dumbed down. Student teaching in 1974, the Am. Hist. text had two paragraphs on George Washington and five pages on Marilyn Monroe.

And finally, it’s kind of hard to describe as “fresh” the feeling being beaten verbally about head and face, which is the experience of being hectored by the Faculty Lounge Chief Warrior.

Wasn’t Hillary the Harbinger? They are all socialists and perhaps somewhat demented. They cling to an ideology that has failed repeatedly, including the cases where it has been attempted here in the US.

So the dems are going to have three disgraced speakers giving key addresses at their convention, after a huge sex scandal by the state dem party leaders. Wow.

Every now and then I visit lefty sites to see what the loons are up to, and it’s true they love Warren for some reason. If she’s 63 then who are their younger up and coming stars? I can’t think of anyone.

And when they send Axelrod out every Sunday it just screams to me that Obama has no surrogates, no bench depth. Axelrod, really? It may not be his fault but he just looks greasy and creepy. The Dems don’t have anyone remotely appealing or mainstream to talk to the middle.

Come on! PROVE the courage of your convictions, child! I do so every day.

DannoJyd on August 6, 2012 at 2:55 PM

If you dislike Romney so much, as a “Elected Republican Delegate” and Tea Party leader, maybe you could tell us what your solutions is? You have someone else who is going to run against Obama? Someone else in the race we don’t know about?

Come on! PROVE the courage of your convictions, child! I do so every day.

DannoJyd on August 6, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I mean, as impressive as your resume is, and being a leader and all, maybe you can show us how bashing the hell out of the Republican nominee on every thread is going to defeat Obama? You got someone waiting in the wings for us? Some one who wants to run, has the organization to get the job done, and can get Romney to stand down and give up the nomination?